Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2014 Goal: $450.00 - To Date: $450.00 (100.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Miscellaneous > Locker Room


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-26-2013, 03:09 PM   #11
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,416
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 2,649
Thanked 8,487 Times in 3,732 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killer View Post
she was hyperventilating about the "Founding Fathers" - neither one of you obviously din't know what they really said

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
We disagree on this issue and I respect that you have grounds for your opinion - but stick it in your ear if you think you are the only one posting on this forum capable of forming a valid opinion on what the "Founding Fathers" intended and how it is to be applied to technological advances in weapons available in the 21st century. The Founders were bright guys but they were not able to divine the future (e.g. - the "Founding Fathers" said for purposes of the census slaves should count as 3/5 of a person - times have changed)

Since i know you have read the opinion of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a ban on the ownership of assault rifles and 30 round clips that the Supreme Court did not elect to review, please walk me through your basis for disagreeing with the rationale of the majority opinion that by application of the Supreme Court's decision in Heller regulation of firearms is subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny in order to determine whether such regulation runs afoul of the Second Amendment and that the right to possess any firearm is not absolute

As with the First Amendment, the level of scrutiny applicable under the Second Amendment surely “depends on the nature of the conduct being regulated and the degree to which the challenged law burdens the right.”...

We are not aware of evidence that prohibitions on either semi-automatic rifles or large-capacity magazines are longstanding and thereby deserving of a presumption of validity.* For the court to determine whether these prohibitions are constitutional, therefore, we first must ask whether they impinge upon the right protected by the Second Amendment. That is, prohibiting certain arms might not meaningfully affect “individual self-defense, [which] is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599). Of course, the Court also said the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for other “lawful purposes,” such as hunting, but self-defense is the “core lawful purpose” protected, Heller, 554 U.S. at 630....

As we did in evaluating the constitutionality of certain of the registration requirements, we determine the appropriate standard of review by assessing how severely the prohibitions burden the Second Amendment right. Unlike the law held unconstitutional in Heller, the laws at issue here do not prohibit the possession of “the quintessential self-defense weapon,” to wit, the handgun. 554 U.S. at 629. Nor does the ban on certain semi-automatic rifles prevent a person from keeping a suitable and commonly used weapon for protection in the home or for hunting, whether a handgun or a non-automatic long gun. See Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 150, 185 (1995) (revolvers and semi-automatic pistols are together used almost 80% of the time in incidents of self-defense with a gun); Dep’t of Treasury, Study on the Sporting Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Assault Rifles 38 (1998) (semi-automatic assault rifles studied are “not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes”). Although we cannot be confident the prohibitions impinge at all upon the core right protected by the Second Amendment, we are reasonably certain the prohibitions do not impose a substantial burden upon that right. As the District points out, the plaintiffs present hardly any evidence that semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds are well-suited to or preferred for the purpose of self-defense or sport. Cf. Kleck & Gertz, supra, at 177 (finding that of 340,000 to 400,000 instances of defensive gun use in which the defenders believed the use of a gun had saved a life, 240,000 to 300,000 involved handguns). Accordingly, we believe intermediate rather than strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review....

We conclude the District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime. Accordingly, the bans do not violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


Here is the link to the decision to the extent you want to cite to specific points in the decision to support your views

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf



Atlanta Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 05:39 PM   #12
torpedoshell31
Bench Warmer
 

Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 192
Member Number: 24438
Thanks: 6
Thanked 30 Times in 24 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

If Atlanta Dan and ricardismo want to give up their 2nd amendment right, first amendment right or any other for that matter, they are free to do so. However, don't try and use government force to take away the Bill of Rights for the rest of us who actually still believe in the constitution. Their just not understanding the reason for the 2nd amendment, to protect the citizen from the greatest threat they can face- an out of control, oppressive government.
torpedoshell31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 06:18 PM   #13
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,416
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 2,649
Thanked 8,487 Times in 3,732 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Quote:
Originally Posted by torpedoshell31 View Post
If Atlanta Dan and ricardismo want to give up their 2nd amendment right, first amendment right or any other for that matter, they are free to do so. However, don't try and use government force to take away the Bill of Rights for the rest of us who actually still believe in the constitution. Their just not understanding the reason for the 2nd amendment, to protect the citizen from the greatest threat they can face- an out of control, oppressive government.
You believe in your version of the Constitution and I believe in my version - your version apparently maintains that the right to bear any weapon cannot be regulated - I disagree - spare me the sanctimonious crap that you have cornered the market on what the Constitution means and that anyone who disagrees with you does not "understand" constitutional law as well as you do
Atlanta Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Atlanta Dan For This Useful Post:
Vis (01-26-2013)
Old 01-26-2013, 06:41 PM   #14
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 8,377
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 877
Thanked 6,239 Times in 2,960 Posts
My Mood: Sick
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan View Post
You believe in your version of the Constitution and I believe in my version - your version apparently maintains that the right to bear any weapon cannot be regulated - I disagree - spare me the sanctimonious crap that you have cornered the market on what the Constitution means and that anyone who disagrees with you does not "understand" constitutional law as well as you do
They will argue medicine with a doctor as well
__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 10:42 PM   #15
torpedoshell31
Bench Warmer
 

Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 192
Member Number: 24438
Thanks: 6
Thanked 30 Times in 24 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Again, if you choose not to own a gun, or if you have one and want to turn in it to the government, that's fine, you are free to do so. Just don't force us who want to live in freedom instead of tyranny to do the same.
torpedoshell31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 11:33 PM   #16
The_Joker
Living Legend
 
The_Joker's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Virginia
Posts: 3,491
Gender: Male
Member Number: 24540
Thanks: 3,918
Thanked 2,133 Times in 1,126 Posts
My Mood: Devilish
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Is it REALLY needed to own a freaking Ak-47?

Really, is it?
__________________
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
The_Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 01:02 AM   #17
MACH1
Quest For Seven
Supporter
 
MACH1's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Potataho
Posts: 14,918
Member Number: 3236
Thanks: 2,098
Thanked 6,412 Times in 2,367 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quackjack View Post
Is it REALLY needed to own a freaking Ak-47?

Really, is it?


Sure, if I choose to.

Thats not your choice to make for others.
__________________


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
MACH1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 08:49 AM   #18
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,416
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 2,649
Thanked 8,487 Times in 3,732 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Quote:
Originally Posted by MACH1 View Post


Sure, if I choose to.

Thats not your choice to make for others.
Really?

You cannot choose to drive 90 miles an hour or while legally drunk although you can drive and drive after having a drink

You cannot keep a pet lion in your backyard but you can have a dog

You cannot choose not to pay taxes on your earnings

You cannot choose to possess child porn

There are lots of activities in which you cannot elect your "right" as a free man to choose
Atlanta Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 11:53 AM   #19
Fire Haley
Banned
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,359
Member Number: 763
Thanks: 53
Thanked 1,098 Times in 768 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan View Post
We disagree on this issue and I respect that you have grounds for your opinion - but stick it in your ear if you think you are the only one posting on this forum capable of forming a valid opinion on what the "Founding Fathers" intended
You still don't get it

Rights belong to individuals not groups. Using her logic you could justify any violation of our Constitutional rights for the "greater good's" safety.

The rights of "the few" is exactly what our Constitution was written for.


you take your Feinsteins and I'll raise you a Thomas Jefferson



of course nanny state loyalists LIKE being slaves, they LIKE a government telling them what's good for them

yessa massa, wha ever you thinks best massa, yessa massa


"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin.

Last edited by Fire Haley; 01-27-2013 at 12:35 PM.
Fire Haley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 12:07 PM   #20
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 8,377
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 877
Thanked 6,239 Times in 2,960 Posts
My Mood: Sick
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Killer View Post
You still don't get it

Rights belong to individuals not groups. Using her logic you could justify any violation of our Constitutional rights for the "greater good's" safety.

The rights of "the few" is exactly what our Constitution was written for.


you take your Feinsteins and I'll raise you a Thomas Jefferson



of course nanny state loyalists LIKE being slaves, they LIKE a government telling them what's good for them

yessa massa, wha ever you thinks best massa, yessa massa


"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin.


Keep the racism to yourself.

Dan gets it. He understands the rights and the limits. You know half the story and seem to apply absolutism to only the 2nd amendment. It's not your fault you lack the education on the subject but it is your fault you don't admit that you do.
__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts